Someone very close to the Cressy case messaged me and let me know that the criminal charges against Rick and Margie Cressy were dropped during a meeting between the Montgomery County ADA, the Cressy family, and their lawyer (they were represented by the Home School Legal Defense Association).

Rick and Margie Cressy made international news when Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department arrested them in January for failing to file adequate paperwork with the Fonda Fultonville School District, which is a state regulation, not a law. They were each charged with four counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The ADA opted to drop the criminal charges and refer the matter to family court, where the case has already been disposed of.

Talk about quiet!  After all the media hoopla the Sheriff’s Office generated – particularly Bill Gilston – when the Cressy’s were arrested, you’d think they’d inform everyone that the charges have been dropped.  Hah!  Trina Darling at Examiner.com, who wrote the above, left a comment on one of my previous posts or I still wouldn’t know – and it’s not for lack of trying.

Cressy's pleading 'not guilty' Jan. 27, 2010

Not only did they avoid informing the media, they were careful to not let anyone know what was going on.  After their initial hearing in January when the Cressy’s pleaded  ‘not guilty,’  they were scheduled to appear in court again on March 18th.  I was there – along with people from several other cases – but the Cressy’s weren’t.  I finally asked the court clerk if they were going to appear, and she told me no.  I asked when they had been re-scheduled for, and she claimed complete ignorance.

I’m glad that at least the criminal charges have been dropped.  I hope it was done so quietly because Sheriff Mike Amato and Inv. Bill Gilston are ashamed of themselves.  I hope they apologized to the Cressy’s.

Then again, I’m still hoping the Easter bunny brings me lots of chocolate.

Jury duty? Yes, jury duty. If you are called, don’t complain or try to get out of it. Use that opportunity to effect change where it matters most – right in your own community.

I learned with amazement about jury nullification a few years ago. They sure don’t teach it in public schools, and you won’t hear about it from a judge when he’s charging the jury. You won’t even see it on TV. But it’s the truth about our jury system, and I encourage you to learn just what it means.

The following quiz is taken directly from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) website.  See if you’ve believed any government lies.

THE JURY QUIZ

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. The primary purpose of the jury is to prevent oppression by the government.

2. The jury is an independent arm of government.

3. The defendant is innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty by the government.

4. The judge can require the jury to find the defendant guilty.

5. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, even if the defendant broke the law.

6. If the jury finds a defendant not guilty when he is clearly guilty, the judge can punish the jurors.

7. The judge decides all questions of law.

8. The jury is not required to reach a verdict.

9. The jurors can vote according to their consciences.

10. The jury must take the law as the Court gives it, whether they believe the law is right or wrong.

11. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, because they believe the law is unjust.

12. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ANSWERS & EXPLANATIONS

1. TRUE: The criminal trial jury was created by the constitutions of the Federal and State governments to be a guardian of the individual’s rights.

Its purpose is to prevent oppression by the Government.. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. – Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 155 (1968)

The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power….– Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975)

2. TRUE: The Constitution divided the government into three branches –the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – in order to prevent an unhealthy concentration of government’s powers. And it created the Jury – the Fourth Branch of Government – in order to hold the first three branches in check. In order to fulfill its purpose, the Jury must be independent of the other branches of government.

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1789

3. TRUE: Under our system of government, it is a sacred principle of criminal law that the government has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. The government makes the criminal accusation and must prove its accusation to the satisfaction of the jury.

4. FALSE: Not legally! The judge has no authority at all to compel the jury to find a defendant guilty. The jury is absolutely independent in this function.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. – 4th Circuit Court of Appeals United States v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1006 (1969)

5. TRUE: The jury can find the defendant not guilty, regardless of what the law says, and regardless of the facts. The jury has the power to find the defendant not guilty for any reason which appeals to them. This is usually called “jury nullification” of the law. In short, the jury has a veto power over bad law and bad judges.

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Horning v. Dist. of Columbia 249 U.S. 596 (1920)

In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position. – U.S. v. Wilson 629 F.2d 439, 443 (1980)

6. FALSE: No one has any authority to punish a juror because of his vote. Period. This issue was resolved in 1670 in London in the case of Edward Bushell – one of the jurors in William Penn’s trial.

But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges. – Justice Robert H. Jackson Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246

7. FALSE: The judge has the authority to declare to the jury what he believes the law to be. But the jury has the authority to ignore that advice, to determine for them what the law says, and to judge for themselves the justice of the law.

It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issue of guilty or not guilty. – Justice Gray, U.S. Supreme Court, Dissenting Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, 172 (1894)

8. TRUE: A verdict is the guilty or not guilty decision of a jury. All jurors must agree to the verdict. Otherwise, they must report a “hung jury.” That means that the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. Each juror is free to vote in accordance with his or her conscience and cannot be forced to vote for conviction or acquittal just to reach a verdict. In the event of a hung jury, the government may bring the defendant to trial again in front of another jury.

9. TRUE: The jurors have not only the right, but the obligation to vote according to conscience. If the jurors believe that the law itself is unjust – for any reason – they have the power to do justice by simply voting not guilty. Every juror has a right to leave court with a clear conscience.

…it is the conscience of the jury that must pronounce the prisoner guilty or not guilty. – Lord Chief Justice Mathew Hale 2 Hale PC 312 (1665)

10. FALSE: The court has no authority to dictate the law to the jury. However, many courts will force jurors to swear an oath to accept the law as the Court dictates. Such an oath violates the Constitution. But anyone refusing to take the oath will be excluded from the jury, thereby depriving the defendant of an independent jury. Such an oath is taken under duress. And nothing agreed to or sworn to under duress is binding. It is ironic that the same judge who demands that jurors take such an oath is violating his own oath to uphold the Constitution.

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – Chief Justice John Jay State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate…. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. – Georgia Constitution Art. I, § I, Par. XI (a)

11. TRUE: To be faithful to their duty, the jurors must vote not guilty, if they think the law is unjust.

It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. – John Adams (1771) Yale Law J. 74 (1964): 173

12. FALSE: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” may have made sense centuries ago when the law confined itself to real crimes with real victims. Everyone knew that murder, rape, robbery, arson, and other such crimes were crimes. Today, with government passing thousands of new laws each year, no one can understand all his obligations under the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant knew of his obligations under the law, it has the power to find the defendant not guilty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse if the jury says it is.

This preposterous doctrine, that “ignorance of the law excuses no one,” is asserted by courts because it is an indispensable one to the maintenance of absolute power in the government. –Lysander Spooner Massachusetts Attorney An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

* * *

So, did you learn anything?  If you did, and you know other people who are ignorant of jury nullification, the FIJA website is a gold mine of information, including:

• several printable brochures, one of which includes the quiz above
• a juror’s handbook [pdf]
• advice about handing out FIJA literature around courthouses
• FIJA contacts by state

Help spread the word and maybe justice can prevail … at least in your neck of the woods.

A MONTGOMERY COUNTY WOMAN HAS BEEN ARRESTED — AFTER HER 3-AND-A-HALF YEAR OLD SON WAS FOUND PARTIALLY SUBMERGED IN A STREAM.  SHERIFF’S OFFICIALS SAY 32-YEAR-OLD STACY FREEMAN OF PALATINE BRIDGE LEFT THE CHILD ALONE OUTSIDE FOR 5-TO-10 MINUTES WITH A DOG — BEFORE NOTICING THAT HE WAS GONE.  EVENTUALLY 911 WAS CALLED.  INVESTIGATOR BRAD SCHAFFER SAYS A DEPUTY FOUND THE CHILD DOWN A 50 FOOT RAVINE, IN THE BROOK…UNABLE TO ESCAPE.  SCHAFFER SAYS THEY DECIDED TO ARREST THE MOTHER BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T CALL 911 RIGHT AWAY.  FREEMAN WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD…AND WAS RELEASED ON AN APPEARANCE TICKET.  THE LITTLE BOY WAS TAKEN TO ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL TO BE CHECKED-OUT…AND RELEASED SOON AFTER.

She was not charged with child endangerment because she left the child alone outside, where he could potentially fall into a ravine and drown. No, she was charged because she didn’t call the cops fast enough.  Am I missing something here?

In another “child endangerment” charge from the same Sheriff’s Department, the Cressy children were never in any danger. Their parents simply failed to submit the proper paperwork for homeschooling.

But this time, where the child potentially was in danger, they didn’t charge her for that.  They charged her for not calling 911 soon enough.

Either the sheriff’s department needs some tutoring on just what constitutes “child endangerment”  – or I’ve fallen down another rabbit hole.

[Fultonville resident Chris] Leis also stated that a court date has been set for the Cressy parents for Jan. 26 at 7 p.m. at the town of Glen Court, Erie Street, Fultonville. Here is an opportunity for people in the Capital District and Mohawk Valley regions of New York State to support parental rights as well as the rights of homeschoolers.

Will you let your voice be heard, or let these people suffer alone?

Hoffman said he was “kind of surprised” by the arrest, Conboy said the Cressy’s could face a year in jail and $1000 fines, and Mason said he’s never been involved in a case where the parents face criminal charges for not filing paperwork.

Only in Montgomery County.  Read all the sorry details here.

Two stories have piqued my interest.   The first is by Trina Darling who paraphrased the conversation of Richard Cressy when he called and spoke with local talk-show host Al Roney.  Darling has done a good job of covering this story from the beginning. The second is a letter to the editor written by the sheriff of Montgomery County, Michael Amato, who felt compelled, like Fonda-Fultonville Central School Superintendent Hoffman, to “clarify” misconceptions about this story since it’s gone national.

As these two versions of events appear to be in conflict with one another, I’m taking quotes from each story and re-arranging them to highlight the differences.  Those headed “Richard Cressy” are from the Trina Darling paraphrase.  Those headed “Sheriff Amato” are from his letter to the editor.  I have also interspersed my own comments because … it’s my blog and I can.

Sheriff Amato

These arrests were made for not meeting the responsibilities required by the state of New York for home schooling and for the protection of minor children.

Richard Cressy

Cressy said that when they moved to the town of Glen, they did not register with the Fonda-Fultonville School district.  His reason was because when they lived in the Gloversville School district, the GSD didn’t really get involved with them, or seem to care much about it.

Everyone, including the Cressy’s, acknowledge that they had not submitted paperwork, which could be stretched to fit Amato’s “not meeting the responsibilities required by the state of New York for home schooling.”  The “protection of minor children” and the child endangerment charges themselves, however, have not been justified.  Amato’s own letter confirmed that the children were not removed from the home, which would have happened if they had been in any danger.  In fact, from the same Darling article, Cressy stated that when they were arrested, they had already satisfied all the requirements of the school, and CPS was satisfied.  The sherriff’s department would not let it go.

Sheriff Amato

It is alleged that the Cressys … could not provide adequate proof that the education of their children had taken place.

Richard Cressy

Cressy was especially upset that the investigator [Gilston] reported to the media (Schenectady Gazette) that he had seen very little sign of schooling at the Cressy home, because when Gilston was at their home, they tried to show him their home school materials, and started getting out books and supplies, and he responded to them that he didn’t need to look at it, and then turned around and reported that he had seen very little evidence.

People usually see what they want to see, as any good investigator who has interviewed witnesses will confirm.

Sheriff Amato

The Cressys were simply issued appearance tickets to appear in court for violating a law

Richard Cressy

Richard and Margie met with the FFSD and got everything set for “now on”. In spite of that, Investigator Gilston told them that it was quite possible that the sheriff’s department would make an example out of them, and this way, it won’t happen in the future. Cressy said that Gilston made this statement a few days before their arrest. He also stated that the sheriff’s department had wanted to arrest them right before Christmas, but that Montgomery County CPS had talked them out of it, so they had waited until after Christmas. Cressy continued by saying that CPS had been very helpful to his family, helping them to get back on track, legal with the school board and the state, but that the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department just wouldn’t seem to let it pass, or let it go.

“Simply issued appearance tickets” sounds so innocuous.  In fact, they were fingerprinted, their mugshots were sent with a press release to several local news outlets, and Investigator Gilston was giving interviews – all to make a point.  The Cressy’s now have an arrest record, they have lost their privacy, and  their lives have been completely disrupted – not to mention the effect this all has had on their children.

Sheriff Amato

The sheriff and staff of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office are required to enforce the law. It is the sworn duty to investigate reported violations and make arrests when that law is violated. The goal of enforcement is to hold those in violation accountable for their actions and attempt to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Quite frankly, this is a load of hogwash.  Every sheriff’s officer has the discretion to arrest, to warn, or to ignore.  In addition, there are multiple laws on the books that are rarely, if ever, enforced – including adultery.  If they decide to enforce that one, then half the sheriff’s department will probably wind up in jail.

It’s worth noting that this is the same Sheriff’s office, with the same Sheriff, who cost Montgomery County millions in a class-action lawsuit over their policy of strip searching everybody they could get their hands on.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the county on behalf of people who were strip searched in jail while facing only minor charges. U.S. District Judge David Hurd issued a permanent injunction barring the Montgomery County Jail from routinely requiring inmates charged with minor crimes to strip and shower in front of a guard. Montgomery County agreed to put $2 million into a fund to pay claims from people strip searched between April 29, 2000 and March 25, 2005. Inmates jailed on misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, probation or parole violations or other minor crimes and civil matters are eligible to make claims. (Aug-23-06) [NEWSDAY]

Shame on you, Mike Amato.  Shame on you, Bill Gilston.  Go find some real criminals and leave the Cressy’s alone.

Addressing questions concerning arrest of parents for failing to register their children

On January 5, 2010, both “The Daily Gazette” newspaper and WRGB television reported that local parents had been charged with endangering the welfare of a child for failing to register their children with the local school district. Although the article was accurate, it did not include all of the details causing many of its readers to draw inaccurate conclusions. In fairness to the family and to the school district, Fonda-Fultonville Central School District Superintendent Dr. James Hoffman issues the following clarification:

1. All parents living in New York State must register their children with their local school districts, but are then free to choose any state-approved public, private or homeschool option. The registration process merely ensures that every child receives an education.
2. County agencies investigated and determined that the children of this family were not registered. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office subsequently charged the parents as prescribed by the law.
3. The district has worked closely with the parents since charges were filed and have assisted the parents in completing all paperwork necessary to comply with state law.
4. It is the district’s goal to quickly resolve this unfortunate situation, to enable the family to pursue their right to homeschool their children, and to restore their privacy.

1. free to choose any state-approved public, private or homeschool option Is that the same type of choice we have when boarding a plane, where we can “choose” to be physically assaulted patted down or virtually stripped scanned?
2. charged the parents as prescribed by the law Where is it written that charges must be placed?  Does this same Sheriff’s Office issue a ticket for every speeder they pull over, or make an arrest for every domestic disturbance they’re called to?  No, they don’t.  They have the ability and the duty to exercise judgment  and discretion.  Either it was not considered in this case, or someone decided to make a point by releasing mug shots to embarrass the Cressy’s.
3. The district has worked closely with the parents since charges were filed Assuming that the investigation included contact with the school to ascertain that the children were not registered, why was this help not given to them to prevent their arrest?  Again, someone wanted to make a point.
4. It is the district’s goal to quickly resolve this unfortunate situation Perhaps the feedback was a little more than they had planned for?  (A current  Google search of Richard and Margie Cressy gets over 25,000 hits.)

I see no “inaccurate conclusions” that have been “clarified” by Hoffman.  I still see those in positions of power throwing their weight around and pointedly making a public example out of the Cressy’s, by charging them with the real crime of child endangerment when the children weren’t in any danger at all.  The Cressy’s simply didn’t submit the proper paperwork to the proper bureaucrat, which was brought to light by an anonymous tip, rumored to have been placed by a neighbor with a vendetta.

And this is justice in Montgomery County.

Child endangerment.  That must be serious, because the story was married to another about a woman who was giving alcohol to minors, two of whom had to be treated at a local hospital.

So what did these Cressy criminals do that they were arrested and their mugshots broadcast to the world?  What was the danger to their children?  Were they drugged or abused?  Were they locked in a back room, cut off from the world?  Are they illiterate?

No.  There have been no allegations that the children have suffered in any way, but given Montgomery County’s history of high-handed interference with parental rights, it’s no surprise that the parents were arrested anyhow – on an anonymous tip, of course.

The evil and nefarious crime that these parents committed was a failure to submit paperwork, emphasis on submit.  The superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School (FFCS), which I reluctantly and repugnantly confess is my alma mater, Dr. Richard Hoffman, told the same TV station that, “We follow the law.”  And the law, of course, states that parents who have the audacity to reject the public school system in favor of educating and raising their own children must submit a curriculum for the superintendent’s approval.  Hoffman said this has now been done and the Cressy’s curriculum has been approved – but the parents were still arrested.

This demand for blind adherence to the letter of the law is eerily reminiscent of the story of Matthew Whalen , the Troy Eagle Scout who was suspended for keeping a survival kit with a 2″ pocketknife locked in his car on school grounds.  As Whalen’s father so eloquently stated:

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for some intelligence on the part of administrators to use discretion and judgment in their daily decisions,” said Bryan Whalen. “Otherwise, what are we paying them for?

“You could have a trained monkey or a computer sitting there just spitting out right and wrong and never any gray areas. That’s just not the way the world works,” he told Foxnews.com.

I’d wager that discretion and judgment are not in the curriculum to train school superintendents.  They’re probably not in the FFCS curriculum, either, but that’s to be expected.  They’re much too busy developing the popular Participation in Government class (PIG), where the kids learn how to apply for welfare and food stamps.

And then, of course, the administration has to develop and document policies for doing strip searches:

Strip searches may only be conducted by an authorized school official of the same sex as the student being searched and in the presence of another district professional employee who is also of the same sex as the student.

[Note to Hoffman:  You might want to re-think this same sex requirement in fairness to your homosexual teachers and/or students.]

If [sic] every case, the school official conducting a strip search may [sic] have probably [sic] cause – not simply reasonable cause – to believe the student is concealing evidence of a violation of law or the district code.

[Note 2 to Hoffman:  You might also want to run these policies by the English department before posting them.  A couple years ago I sent an email pointing out multiple typographical and grammatical errors on your website, but this situation has obviously not improved.]

Proper English aside, the real issue underlying this whole arrest scenario and the complete disruption of the Cressy family, of course, is power.

Whose Kids Are They?

Do they belong to the state?  The state obviously thinks so, just like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty proposal, which would “give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.”

This mindset conforms with the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, the socialist agenda behind church transformation, health care reform, education reform, and welfare reform – in short, the long-planned  “transformation” of our free society.

Rest assured that if you challenge this mindset, you might be arrested just like the Cressy’s.

Whose Kids Are They?

Did you sign on as short-term parents? Do your responsibilities end when the kids are five and you can turn them over to the state babysitter?

Whose Kids Are They?

I applaud Richard and Margie Cressy for doing what most parents are too fearful, selfish, or brainwashed to even attempt.

I deplore the actions of Dr. Hoffman, the Fonda-Fultonville Central School, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and  Montgomery County Child Protective Services for flexing their muscles to make an example of the Cressy’s.  All have over-stepped the bounds of their authority, demonstrating everything abhorrent in power-hungry, egotistical bureaucrats.

Whose Kids Are They?

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
(Psalms 127:3)